Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?
Thanks,
AS
someone share your views, either way?
Thanks,
AS
-
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
David Mark said the following on 2/15/2008 10:42 PM:
<snip>
Incompetence and peer pressure. Not knowing better and becauseThe average Web developer can achieve lousy results on
their own, so what is the benefit of adding 100K of
third-party incompetence to the mix?
"everybody" is using it.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 12:50 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:It sometimes seems like "everybody" is doing it. What I can'tDavid Mark said the following on 2/15/2008 10:42 PM:
>
<snip>
>>The average Web developer can achieve lousy results on
their own, so what is the benefit of adding 100K of
third-party incompetence to the mix?
Incompetence and peer pressure. Not knowing better and because
"everybody" is using it.
>
understand is why huge corporations would put their faith in trash
like Prototripe/Craptaculous (typically to add a few nifty fade
effects.) Can't they afford to pay competent developers? On the
server side, most appear to believe that .NET is the answer. If so,
what was the question?
From what I have read about IE8 (specifically the new versioning meta
tag), all of the libraries that rely on IE-sniffing are in for a rude
awakening. Will the authors finally see the folly of their ways or
will they add more branching based on the content of the meta tag?
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <shor...@gmail. comwrote:<FAQENTRY>Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?
Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.
Peter
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 1:23 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:I propose a two word entry: mostly harmful.On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <shor...@gmail. comwrote:
>>Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?
<FAQENTRY>
>
Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.
>
Peter
And for jQuery: completely worthless.
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
>>An FAQ Entry should be unbiased and informative...
Now that's a provocative idea!
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:<snip blah>Until a clj Nazi codes a "correct" library with the capabilities of
jQuery or Prototype or YUI, those libraries will be continue to be
used to make websites. And probably to an acccelerating degree.
>
They do damage. They do this by relying on browser bugs, sniffing theAnd don't underestimate the impact of these libraries
userAgent, and then patching it with a hack. What happens if the
browser is to fix the bug? Chris Wilson takes about IE trying to "not
break the web".
<snip blah>
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 1:32 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@g mail.comwrote:That right there is the most solid argument I've seen against hacking.On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:Unt il a clj Nazi codes a "correct" library with the capabilities of>jQuery or Prototype or YUI, those libraries will be continue to be
used to make websites. And probably to an acccelerating degree.
<snip blah>
>>And don't underestimate the impact of these libraries
They do damage. They do this by relying on browser bugs, sniffing the
userAgent, and then patching it with a hack. What happens if the
browser is to fix the bug? Chris Wilson takes about IE trying to "not
break the web".
That is worth having in your sig line.
Peter
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
>>The contributors to this group have solid arguments why Prototype has
problems. Those would need to be pointed out or the FAQ answer would
not encapsulate the general opinions of the contributors. That is
really what the FAQ is for: to reduce typing the same thing over and
over again. If that is "biased" then the entry should be biased.
It would be incredibly disappointing to me if the clj FAQ Entry for
Prototype failed to condense the supreme rage that occurs when that
library is mentioned into a hellishly hot and nasty black hole of snot.
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
Perhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see
things the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.
Or is the entertainment value of belittling them more valuable than
actually trying to convince them that you are correct?
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 6:13 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:Who and what are you replying to?Perhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see
Au contraire. Insults have been shown to be the default form ofthings the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.
deflecting justifiable criticism of the writers' work. You reap what
you sow.
I've personally never tried to convince any of them of anything. It>
Or is the entertainment value of belittling them more valuable than
actually trying to convince them that you are correct?
has been shown to be a waste of time. I simply warn others to resist
the urge to use delusions as a crutch.
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
>>have you worked out which post you are
replying to yet?
No, could you please help me with that?
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
Who wants to be coddled in a technical discussion group?
Not I. If only there were some possible middle ground between coddling
and eviscerating.
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
On Feb 16, 3:13 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:I agree. The critics could word their criticism in a more friendly wayPerhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see
things the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.
but perhaps that would remove the sense of conviction they feel. The
criticized could also simply ignore the emotionally charged language
and take the criticism as for what it is: a statement about a piece of
code. It takes both sides to fuel the flames. It is so simple to get
along with folks in this group that I'm amazed those claiming social
graces cannot do it. Odd, eh?
Peter
Comment
-
Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?
timothytoe wrote:<snip>On Feb 16, 5:55 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:<snip>>...We expect to see that form followed here. The reasoning
>goes; A well formed/complete Usenet post requires a little
>discipline, while browser scripting requires a lot of
>discipline, so an individual who cannot demonstrate the
>former is going to be a hopeless case with regard to the
>latter. That may seem harsh and a little arbitrary but
>experience has not invalidated it."Said the blind man ... "Ah, I see.
If you are reading this then you are reading Usenet. There is no "some"Some of you are still reading on Usenet.
about it.
Your are not scoring that well yet.I've not done it that way for a few years. I understand
the confusion now. Makes perfect sense. Thanks.
"Could do better" ;-)
Richard.
--
"Since the use of JavaScript in nonbrowser settings (e.g., server-side
JavaScript) is still rather experimental, the feature set of JavaScript is
still very browser-centric. Thus, the features available in JavaScript are
very closely tied to how browsers evolve and which features they (or their
users) deem as the most important." - John Resig: Pro JavaScript Techniques.
2006
Comment
Comment